Now THIS is interesting: Pielke on Dr. Joanne Simpson

The Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. weblog today includes a letter from Dr. Joanne Simpson, recently retired. He calls her “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years”. It seems that she really spoke her mind on the subject of climate models and the problems of the changing measurement environment around climate monitoring stations.

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. […] The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models.

We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. […] The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable? One distinguished scientist has shown that many aspects of climate change are regional, some of the most harmful caused by changes in human land use.

No one seems to have properly factored in population growth and land use, particularly in tropical and coastal areas.

[…] But as a scientist I remain skeptical. I decided to keep quiet in this controversy until I had a positive contribution to make. […] Both sides (of climate debate) are now hurling personal epithets at each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences.

I agree, enough of this sniping.

Witness the cordial exchange I have with Atmoz, a graduate student at the University of Arizona in Tucson. We see things differently, each of us has made some good analyses and each of us has made some mistakes, but we don’t insult each other over it.

Though I do wish he and others would remove the cloaks of anonymity. Science has never been advanced by an anonymous person, there’s always a real person with a name at the center of discovery and progress.

It would be nice to see Dr. Simpson’s message get out to those it really matters… the lay public and the politicians who continue to use the “threat” of AGW to mask their ulterior motives. What she said was very powerful.

Hoodlumman:
No need to be a cynic. My identity isn’t hard to figure out, and it isn’t a secret. I used to post under my real name, but people kept referring to me as Atmoz anyway. So I decided it’d be easier to just keep everything under one name for simplicity.

” I agree, enough of this sniping.” Snipes are becoming endangered, and snipe hunting (or sniping) will no longer be allowed under a new Congressional Bill, H.R. 5500. It has been determined that global warming is the cause.

Even when scientists point out the faulty models and bad assumptions behind global warming, I still hear so many people say things like, “Just in case global warming predictions turn out to be correct, wouldn’t it be wise to …” fill in the blank.

The real problem is the proposals of the eco-lobby, especially at this time when our economy is already looking like it could take a nosedive, would irresponsibly inflict more suffering on people by raising prices on fuel, raising taxes, restricting business, etc. And those are the mild proposals. The harsher ones would greatly restrict personal freedoms. Some of them are downright scary.

And all of this is over a roughly 1-degree rise in average temperatures (depending on what year you measure from, or which may not even be based on accurate temperature readings), of which CO2 is only about 3 percent responsible, with 97 percent of THAT portion being from natural sources.

It turns out humans’ possible contribution to global warming is demonstrably so miniscule that we couldn’t change the average even if we were trying. So the next time someone says “Wouldn’t it be wise to …,” tell them the wisest thing is to preserve liberty and free societies because it is free societies that are the cleanest and the best hope for preserving our environment.

It is interesting that the anonymous players in the debate tend to be on the pro-AGW side (Atmoz, Tamino, Eli Rabett). I checked through the 15 or so sceptic sites I have in my Favorites and all of them identify themselves by name.

Incidentally, “Student” did not choose his anonymity. His work was funded by an employer (Guinness Breweries) that did not want its competitors knowing they were behind it. To their great credit, though, they allowed the work to be published; nowadays it would probably be guarded jealously as Intellectual Property.

The natural CO2 is absorbed by the system resulting in no real accumulation. Industry CO2 (c. 6.3 BTMC) is, yes, only c. 3% of atmospheric CO2 emitted. And even half of that winds up in Ocean or land sinks. But an estimated 3.1 BMTC winds up in the atmosphere (which has c. 730 BMTC or so). CO2 is pretty persistent, so it accumulates.

Now, as to whether a difference between 1/30 of 1% and 1/20 of 1% of atmospheric CO2 makes a difference is another question. My guess: some, but not much. But atmospheric CO2 is increasing at current rates at c. 1/2% per decade.

I don’t think this matters much, but it is what it is.

(There are disputes as to the historical levels of CO2 that I am beginning to look into, but that’s another question.)

Well another attempt in the trash bin on Tamino. Tried to post the link to this letter and just got ignored. I guess Dr. Simpson is just another denier. Makes you wonder how good the GCM’s really are. When someone like Dr. Simpson says just look at weather forcasts.

I typically don’t use my (full) name either, but I mostly blog about politics. Still, especially when your young, you don’t like using your real name online. Some of us were taught not to do so. In the case of some of these older science bloggers, it really isn’t excuseable. But its easier for you, Anthony, you were a weatherman!

I agree with all the above. what more could I say. I am not a scientist and have no degrees but I believe that any one with some intellegence could read the reports and look at some of the reported problems with methodology and come to their own conclusion. I believe the major problem is that many of the the newer studies don’t agree with the older (pre 2000) studies. There are many careers and reputations at stake and we are going to have a time getting to the truth.

The good doctor has hit the nail on the head and we need to stop the infighting and work together for the common truth. The consequencies of the incorrect solution is terrible for the general population.

I recommend “The Weather Makers” by Tim Flannery for a realistic interpretation of the devastating effect that man has had on his environment over the last two centuries. It is the “rate of change” that distinguishes the present from the past, a rate which Flannery estimates to be 30 times greater than ever before. I agree. To deny anthropogenic destruction of our environment, as so many insist on doing, borders on the criminal and they should be treated with contempt, something I will continue to do. By the end of this decade anthropogenic global warming deniers (AGWDers) will be as scarce as hen’s teeth.

Be sure not to publish this opinion as it is at variance with the majority.

Not only does nosivad not know what a URL looks like, He is posting links to other comments where he again posts a link. I didn’t bother to check how long these chains of links are, but they are an attempt to get higher search engine ranking.

Worse than spam IMO.

And Flannery is a nut with a hairbrained scheme to build a city powered by geothermal energy in the middle of Australia.

To deny anthropogenic destruction of our environment, as so many insist on doing, borders on the criminal

You’re a little behind the curve, nosivad. Calls have already been made to throw the lot of us in prison unless we jump on the AGW bandwagon. Perhaps you could tell us how exactly that would advance science.

I knew the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) house of cards would eventually, collapse, but I didn’t think it would happen so quickly.

If I were one of the “high priests of the climate orthodoxy” I would be looking for somewhere to hide. When the confounded construct comes down, a lot of members of the public who were previously true believers are going to be out for blood. A dangerous situation.

To deny anthropogenic destruction of our environment, as so many insist on doing, borders on the criminaland they should be treated with contempt

Tsk! Tsk! If you feel so vehemently, I’d recomment going for greater effect. One rarely defeats an intellectual foe by emitting or engendering hostility. Victory is best achieved by winning the other fellow over to one’s own side. (Presumably the main point of the scientific journal.)

Most folks around here think there has been some degree of global warming, even that some of it is anthropogenic. And I’m sure that no one present would deny that mankind has done his share of environmental damage. Depending on how one defines that, of course. (Is a house “damage”? Or does it take a village?)

I thnk that mankind is going through a very rapid development phase that will continue for the next few decades. Like it or lump it. Then, once near-universal affluence emerges, there will be a rather intense and continuing greening, following the pattern of current crop of DCs. This pace will not continue indefinitely.

I also think there is plenty of room for both man and nature, and there will be even more elbow room in the future even with a larger population. The history of the last two centuries is, in the long haul, unique and our current transitional phase temporary. But I doubt you would agree with me.

…it’s a shame there were not enough caves to go round, way back, else maybe these monstrous homes of even basic comfort would never have been built? Shame some idiot trapped lightning in a heap of fuel and did cooking; then potting; then smelting. Without that we could still be content to shiver; eat off the skin; walk when we wanted to go…

But take heart. There are an enlightened amongst us who will return mankind to its roots… then we can begin all over.

You know absolutely nothing about my lifestyle. It is I who knows about yours. You are a mindless blowhard, an intellectual zero and I bet your IQ is in the room tmperature range.

“I get no respect.”
Rodney Dangerfield

I don’t give a lot either when I am dealing with lightweight cowards who can’t even use their own names

“Birds of a feather flock together.”
Cervantes

Come join my little one man study group -john.a.davison.free.fr/

If you don’t show I will make a note of it.

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”

REPLY: Mr. Davison; No matter high big your IQ may be compared to others, on this forum, we treat others with respect. See the policy. You’ve made two posts here, both using disparaging language. Please don’t make a third with the same tone.

This site was a pleasant discovery. I’m a engineer and physicist by training and not a meteorologist, but still can add my scientific judgment, and two cents.

I find the qualitative hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming posed in the 1960-70s to be quantitatively answered in the science of the 21st century. A proposed threat with a power to alter the global temperature by a several degrees per century, has been revealed to be capable of only a quantitative change of a few hundredths of a degree per century. Any other changes appear to be non anthropogenic in origin, but all taken together, are insignificant unless carried on for millenia, not decades.

That is during the passing transitory phenomenon of a fossil fuel based civilization transitioning to better energy sources. Fusion beckons long before 2100, and a lot sooner than many including within the scientific community anticipate. ITER is only a confirming physics experiment now, no longer a quest for answers; and it is simultaneously a very crude engineering prototype of a fusion power station.

I was prompted to write because Mr. Novidad does not know of what he speaks. The developed countries have made great progress in cleaning the environment, It is much better than it was at mid-century past. The air water, land and biosphere are cleaner and healthier than then.

Soon the battle will have been completed, and we can declare victory. In the US, there are only a few places that actually don’t have good air yet. But most of the country’s air and water are near clean; except for minor single site alarms set off during some arbitrary fifteen minute window every other year or so. The worst such site the LA basin, has marked improvement but still suffers 30-40 bad air days when it used to have a few hundred per year. And the 30-40 are no where near as polluted as in the days of old. There is still much work to be done.

The real danger is the changes in society adopted in fear of AGW, I suspect.

I can’t believe nosivad is still pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by using his computer to post on this blog which he freely admits just a “groupthinktank”.

He is literally murdering the planet with his unnecessary CO2 emissions, just like Al Gore.

Why can’t the pair of them live in biofuel and solar power commune and stay carbon neutral?

I find it difficult to comprehend why a person who so strongly believes in the ’cause’ would harm the planet so much.

I guess Al Gore is right? Only the rich deserve to expel as much CO2 as they want. They can buy expensive carbon credits from themselves and kill the planet as much as they like with a clear conscience while the proles have CO2 meters installed in their homes (only a matter of time).

Are there any climate-related bets now on in Las Vegas?
People like novisad, those who base their assertions on junk science, all like to say they are certain the earth is “very likely” headed to a manmade climate catastrophe. However, I have yet to find neither a doomsday-sayer nor a climate scientist who is confident enough in his own science to put money down where his mouth is.
If asked to bet on catastrophic sea level rise, which they all prophesize, they simply refuse to. I’ve tried this a number of times…they’ve all run away.
They themselves know (but refuse to admit) the gross uncertainties and lack of undstanding when it comes to climate science.

My bet:
I’ll bet my house that sea levels will rise LESS THAN 10 cm in the next 10 years (i.e. 1 meter per century). I’ve been searching for a climate scientist ready to make this bet (Not that a meter would be catstrophic).
Less than 10 cm in the next 10 years: I win.
More than 10 cm in the next 10 years: the doomsday scientist wins (and us skeptics will all shut up and throw ourselves at their feet).

You can’t find one scientist who would even bet on 60 cm in the next 100 years…let alone 100 cm – or 6 meters like Al Gore warns!
Anyone can blow hot air – but few are willing to put their money down on what they say.

So, “Nosivad”, you aren’t angry, but “hostile”. And you thought by coming here with your “hostility” you would accomplish what, exactly? If you know something scientifically, perhaps you would like to share your obviously superior knowledge with us? If you care, you’ll share.

Win ‘em over with kindness! Tamino and the folks at Real Climate for one thing have been most uncivil as of late.

Personally, I think people from all walks of life and political ideologies are getting very turned off by all the catastrophe talk, and unlike in the past when it was very easy to suppress alternate theories and such the internet pretty much ensures this suppression won’t happen again.

No need to be a cynic. My identity isn’t hard to figure out, and it isn’t a secret. I used to post under my real name, but people kept referring to me as Atmoz anyway. So I decided it’d be easier to just keep everything under one name for simplicity.

Wasn’t too hard to figure out. Atmoz is Nathon Johnson in the department of atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona.

I’m assuming you meant “temperature”, and I won’t point out the irony of a mistake like that when insulting someone’s intelligence.

So this room temperature range. How is it measured? Is it a rural room temperature or is it subject to urban heat island bias? Is it a room in Al Gore’s mansion, and therefore having a carbon footprint 10 times larger then mine? I bet his rooms are pretty hot, even when he isn’t even there, while he is off polluting the planet in his private jet?

Is this room from pre-1979, when we all know the Earth was a frozen ball of ice until those satellites came online and discovered the Earth was actually habitable?

Is the temperature of the room measured in Kelvin? So his IQ is about 300?

If he leaves his DVD player on stand-by over night, will it generate enough waste heat to warm the room even further, thus increasing his IQ?

Do we know that this is the real Davison or one of his proteges having a lark? Seems to me that the backward spelling of the name is inconsistent with a man his age and more consistent with the younger crowd also prone to use the mixed case (e.g. 133t haXor) convention. If it _is_ him then Bulworth there needs to check his meds.

Either way… Mr. Watts, you can make a fortune here. When will the Snot Bag t-shirts be on sale? I want one. XL please.

Shame some idiot trapped lightning in a heap of fuel and did cooking; then potting; then smelting.

So far as I can dope out, the current breed of man had fire and was hunting and cooking from the very beginning. H. Erectus had fire, and maybe even Ergaster. Australopithicenes had stone tools. I think H.S. figured out the potting and smelting.

I am not so sure about that. We still get a different flu each year. Humans have undergone some minor but naotable change in fewer than 100 generations. (You could feed a typical medieval person a modern diet, but it wouldn’t make him tall. We have evolved to be somewhat taller, via whatever mechanism.)

I think you may be at least partly right in there is latency at work. But I do not discount mutation either. I can think of examples of slow drift and radical deptarture.

I am not any kind of scientist, neither a climatologist nor biologist, so I can’t demonstrate evolution in a controlled manner. But look at New York pigeons (an artificially created species), which have evolved considerably during my lifetime, in terms of both size and coloration/pattern. I hypothesize that this is in response to changing environmental conditions (i.e., pre- and post- Clean Air Act). That is a form of evolution (of the gradual kind; I do not speak to cause) that I have actually seen personally.

BTW, I was in high school when you were publishing your papers, but I had definitely been born by then. I note that my field (history) and yours (biology) are somehat in competition for the same intellectual real estate, but one will not replace the other, and each can inform the other.

Mr. Davison may have noted the “unintended evolution” in my last post, owing to a “genetic code” typo. Once the trait was introduced and the cutoff failed, the italic latency took over. Yet it remains (somewhat) legible.

If you don’t show I will make a note of it.

Do.

and a lot sooner than many including within the scientific community anticipate.

And one holy heck of a long time before we go anywhere near short of oil (but then, we just keep on finding 2 bbls for every one we use and have since the getgo).

The developed countries have made great progress in cleaning the environment, It is much better than it was at mid-century past. The air water, land and biosphere are cleaner and healthier than then.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. […]”

I keep wondering what level of bias NSF and other funding organizations, including universities, have imposed by their policies on the science of climate analysis. I was astounded at the amount of funding for “projects”, “grants” and “research” a local dendrochronologist received (stated plainly on his CV page). He’s a firm believer in AGW, and co-author of several papers with M. Hughes and others. Looking at a few other AGW scientists’ web pages, I found that these grants are not really unusual – individual grants are often in the hundreds of thousands, some in the millions.

I’m not sure what it say when scientists and academicians wear these prizes on their sleeves, but if their findings all skew toward the same public position, it beseaks a more or less overt bias in the funding process. I’ve come to think of the “precautionary principle” really as a guidebook for how climate scientists keep the spiggot open at all costs, with injunctions to be fastidiously cautious about one’s friends, learning to use only the politically purified language of the brotherhood, and probably choosing anonymity over self-disclosure.

One climate scientist, posting on a blog recently, claimed she was living a life of “genteel poverty”, but the size of the grants she receives are lavish by comparison to your grassroots efforts with surface temps, and Steve McIntyre’s Almagre bristlecone project. These efforts demonstrate to the interested, but non-scientific community, that results can be archived publicly, and research, data gathering, and analyis can be conducted in a way that preserves integrity.

I found a portion of Dr. Simpson’s statement very telling: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly”.
The converse of this statement is that affiliation with, or funding from an organization does not allow you to speak your true beliefs. I believe absolutely that no one bites the hand that feeds them. The majority of scientists are motivated by the same needs and drives as all people.

I have a whole thread devoted to global warming on my blog and you are all invited there to make your contributions. All that is required is registration and refraining from personal insult or obscenity .I will even tolerate a modicum of insult as long as it serves its puroose which is to characterize the commenter. Whatever you say will remain, No statements will edited or deleted. If you insist on anonymity which I also deplore, I will make a note of it when I respond. Now that is as good a deal as one will find on any weblog I am aware of.

I still predict that you won’t leave the security of this “groupthinktank” which is exactly how this blog comes across.

REPLY: The invitation is welcome, but I posit that you have an odd, perhaps counterproductive way of introducing yourself then offering dialog. I don’t usually greet people with the phrase “snot bags” or “IQ’s of room temperature” (as you did in your comments #1 and 2) when building up to soliciting an invitation. Is this a typical social skill up there at the University of Vermont or is it your particular style?

You really need to get over yourself. How is your “groupthink” going to be any better than anyone else’s? Why should be go somewhere just to be insulted and belittled as you’ve already done here without provocation?

A brief note of admiration for the refreshing viewpoint of stas peterson

Yes. He is well aware of the fact that a nation must become affluent enough to insure the wellbeing of its next generation before it cleans up its act. He’s also aware that the UDCs are developing to that point, same as the west did. I wish more folks were aware of that. (Historical perspective can be a useful predictive tool.)

Internet blogs, almost without exception, are centers of polarization and protectionism for the particular biases of their founders. They pride themselves on the number of visitors and followers they can muster. A prime example is P.Z. Myers’ Pharyngula which probably has the biggest following of all time. Here is a man who has completely abandoned science to dedicate all his energies to the defamation of all that is good and virtuous in the world. The Nazis had the Jews, Myers has the Pope, the President of the United States, and anyone else who believes there was a purpose in the universe. Like his cronies Hitchens and Dawkins, he has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of the one thing that has always been in question – the mechanism behind the two great mysteries of the organic world, ontogeny and phylogeny.

The reason these chance worshippers must behave as they do is because they finally realize that atheist Darwinism is a disaster as an explanatory hypothesis, but they cannot, probably genetically, accept the only remaining explanation which is a planned, goal-directed, now terminated, evolutionary sequence. They are living demonstrations of Einstein’s determinism, helpless victims of a determinism I share without reservation because everything that has ever been revealed about both ontogeny and phylogeny pleads for a role for one or more Creators in the distant past. Those that are unable to realize this are congenitally impaired. As the title of William Wright’s book declares, they are “Born That Way.”

“Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion.”
Albert Einstein

I speak as a physiologist. Physiology is the science of mechanism – how things work. Darwinism simply doesn’t work. It never has and it never will. Natural selection, population genetics, random mutation and sexual reproduction – none of these ever had anything to do with the emergence of a new life form, a process no longer in significant progress. The only role for any of these Darwinian postulates was and is still to this day to PREVENT evolutionary change and preserve the species for as long as possible.

“Evolution is finished” is one of the threads on my blog and I invite all to participate there and on the “global warming” thread as well, where you can offer your opinions on what I regard as the two most pressing issues of our time, an understanding of our origins and an understanding of what seems to me to be our impending extinction. Evolution in the past was a balance between creation and extinction, a balance which no longer exists. Only extinction remains. In my opinion those who knee-jerk reject such a scenario are fools just as are those who deny an anthropogenic destruction of the earth. They are both perfectly transparent to this investigator.

Incidentally, there is nor a shred of credible evdence that sun spots and their cycles ever had anything to do with the weather on earth. Milankovitch cycles have until recently determined earth’s weather and climate changes. Those cycles are now completely dominated by the ever increasing CO2 atmospheric levels that began a scant two centuries ago with the Industrial Revolution. Those who continue to deny this reality are fools.

“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
John A. Davison

REPLY: Perhaps, but how do you exaplin the LIA coinciding with the Maunder Minimum? We’ll find out for sure soon.

“The role that sunspots played in those changes, however, is still challenged by some, for despite the coincidence in timing, no testable physical mechanism has yet been identified that would allow sunspots to affect the temperature of our planet.”
Tim Flannery, The Weather Makers, page 43.

P.S. Why do you insist in logging me in as nosivad when I use my real name, something most of your clients do not do? Anonymity is one of my private peeves. Incidentally so was it Dr. Simpson’s.
John A. Davison

REPLY: Try typing your name in the form sir, it only logs whatever is typed in, nobody is changing it. It posts exactly as entered in the form, perhaps your autofill in your browser is doing it for you?

As for a “testable physical mechanism”, yes it has been tested, and recreated in the lab. GCR to cloud nucleii to cloud cover modulation. See Svensmark. Folks, lets help out the good doctor here.

Dr. Davison: I do not believe their is any overriding “purpose” to the universe. (I see no evidence.) My attitude regarding that is “so what”? I also suspect strict causalism may be the case. (I think that quantum “randomness” etc. are just translating “I can’t predict that (this week)” to “it is random”. )

I do not believe evolution is at an end; “my pigeons” argue otherwise: Evolution under pressure of natural selection in response to environmental change (in this case, improvement) on at least three levels. In the NYC pigeons’ case, the change is striking (size, robustness, coloration). I have also noticed, however, that pigeons of the Ruhr valley show almost no color variation whatever–they display a ubiquitously tortoise-shell ringlet patterning. (There is also the expanding field of genetic manipulation which is not “natural” but none the less real.)

The LIA may not be directly scientifically linked to its five [sic] solar minimum phases, but it is directly coincidental with them so far as I know. As for CO2, it is definitely a greenhouse gas and creates a warming offset. But as to the manner or degree, that is simply not known. It might be a very small offset. (For instance, we have no tropospheric heat bubble as predicted by models.)

Is the Dr. Davison who posted at 02:58:06 on Feb. 29th the same Dr. Davison who, earlier in this thread, called us:

unfulfilled, unpublished, cowardly snot bags

I ask because the two posts do not appear to have been written by the same person. Your current level of civility is appreciated. I don’t deny that there are a few who post here who have a tendency to get a little snarky with those who share your views; but the majority of us are here to learn and share ideas.

Incidentally, there is nor a shred of credible evdence (sic) that sun spots and their cycles ever had anything to do with the weather on earth.

If by “not a shred of credible evidence”, you mean that there is no empirical proof, then I’d say you are technically correct. According to NASA:

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research. (emphasis added)

Just out of curiosity, Dr. Davison, do you believe that some other mechanism was responsible for the Maunder Minimum, or do you just believe that a link between the sun spot cycle and temperature has simply not yet been proven? If the latter, why do you appear to blindly accept the, as yet unproven, link between increased atmospheric CO2 and temperature, when that link is based almost exclusively on GCMs?

Davison still thinks C02 drives the climate. The laws of physics say otherwise. But, Davison doesn’t care about that, because he is an ideologue.
“The Weather Makers” is nothing but climate porn, without a shred of scientific fact. Only a complete moron would believe what is in that unmitigated pile of trash.

Tim Flannery, the author of “The Weather Makers” is a fine naturalist, a first class researcher and an honest to God scientist. Why would I pay any attention to what a bunch of unpublished blowhards such as inhabit this flame pit have to say. You guys are just like the Darwinian actheists. Not one of you has ever published a word on the subject to you profess to know all about. I’ll bet 95% of you are Darwinian mystics anyway.

None of them ever published anything on evolution either. Wesley Elsberry, P.Z . Myers, Larry Moran and especially Richard Dawkins, not one of them ever published a word on the only issue that has ever been in question, the MECHANISM of a long ago ended organic evolution. Only Dawkins even imagines that he did. He is the most deluded of them all, living in a fantasy world he created all by himself. All he and Myers now do is peddle coffee mugs, bumper stickers and T shrts all sporting the big red A. The reason they have to do this is because they know damn well that Darwinism is a flaming disaster so, rather than admit it, they lash out at the only conceivable alternative which is a planned evolution. They are “born that way” losers.

What we “believe” means nothing. What matters is the hard data which clearly correlates increasing CO2 levels with increasing violent weather, high winds, world wide increases in precipitation, violent swings in temperature and polar melting. No other measured parameters show such correlation and certainly not sunspot activity. We should also remember that the other product of the combusion of fossil fuels is H2O. The obvious shrinking of the continents is sure not due only to thermal expansion. The oceans are being diluted by the fresh water from melting polar and glacier ice at a rate never before known in the history of the earth, a rate which Tim Flannery estimates to be thirty times that in the past.

The recent drop in temperature is exactly what is to be expected as polar ice melts. Every gram converted from ice to water at 0 C. absorbs 80 calories. Those calories come from the atmosphere. It marks the beginning of the end of civilization as we have known it. By the end of this decade sea levels will obviously be on the rise and anthropogenic global warming deniers will be scarce as hen’s teeth.

Trust me, but of course you won’t.

If you can remain civil come present your views on my blog –

john.a.davison.free.fr/

Come anyway, vent your spleens, force me to ban you, but be confident that whatever you put in print will remain after you are gone. So far that policy has kept the number of blowhards to a minimum. I predict none of you will show. Most folks don’t care for that policy and that suits me just fine. They prefer to present their venom while surrounded by cheering like minded cronies.

I love it so!

“Birds of a feather flock togerher.”
Cervantes

“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
Oscar Wilde

Come anyway, vent your spleens, force me to ban you, but be confident that whatever you put in print will remain after you are gone.

Wow, who could possibly pass up a warm invitation like that? Especially after calling us all “snotbags” in your very first post?

We are still waiting for that apology, by the way. Also, you may want to consider investing in a spell checker, you have several misspelled words in your post, so combined with the insults you’ve been hurling, I now have sincere doubts that you are actually a college professor at the University of Vermont. It seems unbecoming of a professional to behave this way.

Anthony Watts — If you read the link to Prof Davison’s home page, you’ll find interesting reading. Apparently the U there regards him poorly by his own descriptions of his treatment at their hands. Make of this what you will.

***

Professor — Dr. Greg Cohran has published a paper discussing recent evolutionary evidence in Ashekenazi jews, specifically the heritability of intelligence. He’s pretty clever and makes a compelling case for it. The reason I mention Dr. Cochran in particular is that this guy is thinking that most diseases (e.g. cancers) are from infectious agents and due in part to his efforts and influence we now have antibiotics that can cure certain stomach lymphomas (with Dr. Paul Ewald) and vaccines for cervical cancer.
His approach is to look at disease from an evolutionary standpoint. As such there’s a boatload of physical evidence that Dr. Cochran actually knows what he’s talking about.

What do you have that counts as evidence? Produced any vaccines lately?

I find the tenor of your postings disappointing, Dr John A Davison, aka nosivad, and at such variance with the general civility and reason of the offerings here that you must pardon me that henceforward I will use the skip button when your name heads a post.

Weather is not climate change. But surely we have enough evidence to kill the hypothesis that CO2 is the primary villain in global warming. Maybe the upcoming “Heartland” conference in N.Y. will get some positive press coverage but I am not holding my breath. We have got to stop the politicians somehow before they ruin the global economy. McCain is no better that the Democratic nominees in this respect. Until the IPCC acknowledge the work of Zaworowski, Beck, Svensmark ,Soon et al and allow for open discussion, how can such an organization be taken seriously?

Anthony don’t be so hard on him (nosivad ). He hasn’t figured out that Firefox spell checks for him. Too much education maybe. Oh sorry maybe your favorite program IE…LOL I just had a wonderful response to my post on Tamino aka Hansen’s Bulldog.

But “my pigeons” disagree. They clearly demonstrate a present evolution.

“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”

Man progresses apace unto god-like power to stagger his present imagination. Power that he humself shall create. He shall remake his world. Neither you nor I can prevent this. It is Childhood’s End.

You are a biologist who believes in the end of evolution. Even as you witness the inflection point of the progress of man. A point where EVERYTHING gloriously evolves.

The deception with tact, just what are you trying to say?
You’ve got a blank face, which irritates
Communicate, pull out your party piece
You see dimensions in two
State your case with black or white
But when one little cross leads to shots, grit your teeth
You run for cover so discreet, why don’t they:

Do what they say, say what you mean
One thing leads to another
You told me something wrong, I know I listen too long
But then one thing leads to another.

The impression that you sell
Passes in and out like a scent
But the long face that you see comes from living close
To your fears
If this is up then I’m up but you’re running out of sight
You’ve seen your name on the walls
And when one little bump leads to shock miss a beat
You run for cover and there’s heat, why don’t they:

Do what they say, say what they mean
One thing leads to another
You told me something wrong, I know I listen too long
But then one thing leads to another
One thing leads to another

Then it’s easy to believe
Somebody’s been lying to me
But when the wrong word goes in the right ear
I know you’ve been lying to me
It’s getting rough, off the cuff I’ve got to say enough’s enough

Bigger the harder he falls
But when the wrong antidote is like a bulge on the throat
You runs for cover in the heat why don’t they

Do what they say, say what they mean
One thing leads to another
You tell me something wrong, I know I listen too long
But then one thing leads to another
One thing leads to another

I now have sincere doubts that you are actually a college professor at the University of Vermont.

Hmmm. I think he is exactly what he says he is. (poor spelling is even occasionally a mark of genius. I have known brilliant minds who have literally “transcended” phonetics.)

I went to his site. I find him vaguely intriguing. Partly because he represents a point of view and philosophy to which I am so, well, alienated, for lack of a better word. He has a first-class mind, but with many serious faults. I also see in him a vague reflection of “me-gone-wrong”, and this piques my interest, after a sort of bemused, cockeyed fashion. He seems unhappy, which is unfortunate, for I somehow feel joy would have served him as a valuable ally. There is more I would say, but I will hold off for now . . .

Evan Jones,
I am no longer a professor at the University of Vermont. I resigned from that den of Darwinian ultraliberal mysticism in December 2000 to dedicate the rest of my energies to exposing the factions that continue the most idiotic debate in the history of science, a debate that that has produced absolutely nothing of significance with respect to our origins or to the mechanism by which that was achieved.

My work is published and now stands for all time right next to that of the several great minds that made it possible.

I am content with that. Incidentally I am quite happy, knowing that everything I have ever published, before and after I became interested in evolution in 1984, still stands without refutation in the professional literature.

If you think I am unhappy you sure haven’t read much of my internet rapport.
I greatly enjoy exposing exposing all the chicanery, bigotry and downright mendacity with which the internet is so rife. It is grist for my mill!

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. […] The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. ”

I find that disturbing that scientists has to be very careful to guard what they say.To keep their position as a researcher.

I believe that science progresses best when there are open communication between people on the various scientific topics.

We saw a very good example over at Climate Audit.Where Lohele allowed comments/criticisms of his paper be posted openly.The many replies over his paper that was posted.Showed some problems that Lohele then modified.

Since this implies that censorship is going on.I think it is an example of political influence at work here.

————————

“Come anyway, vent your spleens, force me to ban you, but be confident that whatever you put in print will remain after you are gone. So far that policy has kept the number of blowhards to a minimum. I predict none of you will show. Most folks don’t care for that policy and that suits me just fine. They prefer to present their venom while surrounded by cheering like minded cronies. ”

Dr. Davidson you make it sound unpleasant your invitation.Why not better to discuss the topic at hand instead?

I have invited a few AGW believers to join and present their arguments in the forum I administrate over the last year.NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS DONE SO!

I made it clear that as Administrator.That my criteria is a reasonably civil debate.Still no takers.LOL

Since you have gone to all the trouble posting generally off topic stuff.It is indicative that discussing the topic of this thread itself is not important to you.

I took a look at Davison’s web site. Sorry to say I think he’s gone around the bend. Elevator doesn’t make it to the top floor any more. Lights are on, but nobody’s home.

Lol, that much was obvious from his very first post, and his apparent bi-polar behavior here. At first I considered someone else might be posting in his name, but now I think he’s just a royal loon. Correction, I KNOW he’s just a royal loon.

But “my pigeons” disagree. They clearly demonstrate a present evolution.

Maybe the Davison is talking about human evolution. I might somewhat agree there, since most humans don’t adapt to their environs any more, but change their environs to suit them. We turn on the heat when it’s cold, and the AC when it’s hot. We drive instead of walk/run, our food is meticulously prepared, etc. On the other hand, we encourage those with genetic mutations/diseases to procreate, as opposed to a million years ago when obvious mutations might have been killed as infants. And if, in the future, we can nip genetic diseases and deformities (dwarfism, gigantism, etc) in the bud, we’d definitely cease to evolve, since everyone could be what the society at the time considers perfect. A whole ‘nother can of worms that is.

Just thinking out loud, I have no scientific basis for any of this, just thoughts.

“I’m senile you know. Have a nice cozy “groupthink.”
Ah, it all fits together now. Senile, bipolar, forgot to take his meds. I guess we should give nosivad/Davison or whatever his name is a break.
” ultraliberal mysticism” hmmm… perfect description for AGW, and for his book
“The Weather Makers” he keeps touting.

Maybe the Davison is talking about human evolution. I might somewhat agree there, since most humans don’t adapt to their environs any more, but change their environs to suit them.

Surely not! Although I do agree that we manipulate our environment, we also change it in pleasing ways and then (physically) adapt in that very direction:

For example, over the last several hundred years man has evolved substantially as a direct result of his improved physical environment (food cultivation, etc.). We are much taller, for one. We mature earlier, as well.

And not only that, but over the last cenury, thanks to an improvent in transportation and an advancement in social attitudes (both being a changing our environs to suit us), there has been a great mixing of human traits.

In the very near future, we will be “changing” man himself. Not to call that “evolution” (after a fashion) would be pedantic, to say the least. We will certainly be “different” (as in “new and improved”).

How can that not be evolution if it is considered evolution if a squirrel population gets split by a river, and one turns a little grayer and the other a little redder?

Fear not; human evolution is alive and well and living in all four corners of the earth, and probably occurring at a far more rapid pace than ever before.

How does this stack with your thoughts, Jeff Alberts? Your post at (09:35:47) on March 1 caught my interest. I confess to knowing very little about anything at all; but do have a wide interest in many things (accelerated by four adult children who got real education). I am a listener; take it away, Jeff…

“Explosive population growth is driving human evolution to speed up around the world, according to a new study.

“The pace of change accelerated about 40,000 years ago and then picked up even more with the advent of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, the study says.

“And while humans are evolving quickly around the world, local cultural and environmental factors are shaping evolution differently on different continents. ”

You are right on. We do things no animal breeder would dream of doing, preserving the unfit, allowing sterile couples to procreate, letting our numbers increase without restraint and polluting our environment with our effluent and with the technology that has made all of the preceding possible.

A monoculture approaching 7 billion is doomed to its own extinction. I don’t enjoy painting such a pessimistic picture , but reality and my responsibility as a scientist and a citizen require this dismal scenario.

Lol, Evan, yes, I have evolved! Just taking a page out of Anthony’s book of non-anonymity. Not that I post anything useful here…

As for human evolution, I said I “might somewhat agree”. Seems that our evolution is less driven by random mutation though. Again, I’m not a biologist, don’t even have a degree in anything, just someone with eclectic interests.

Ironically, I don’t care for Meyers or his fanboys either. Any expression of doubt about GW on his blog will get you flogged as an idiot. I do agree with is atheism, but not his scientific acumen or lack thereof.

Roger, I’m happy to be proven wrong. My statement was really just a musing I’ve thought about for a long time, but never really researched. Of course, I’m not sure if interbreeding is really evolution. Maybe it is, I don’t know. And proper nutrition means we’re just reaching our fuller potential. And then again, not all societies are taller, are they?

There hasn’t been a new Genus in two million years and nothing beyond a subspecies or intraspecific variety in historical times. Visit my thread -EVOLUTION IS FINISHED – present your evidence to the contrary. Nobody else has. Be the first to prove Davison is a crackpot!

Of course inbreeding isn’t evolution. Organic evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past. Natural selection, population genetics, sexual reproduction, genetic drift, Mendelian genetics – none of these ever had anything to do with creative evolution. They are all anti-evolutionary, preserving the standard. It is all over but extinction.

Very last thing I would be interested in doing, Jeff. I posted the quote and link looking for comment and thoughts on this, as the whole story both intrigued and surprised me. Been simmering in the back of my mind ever since I read it as it has some major ramifications in the way we view ourselves; may even be powerful enough to break through some rather foolish political correctness which is abroad.

REPLY: Well enough of this, we aren’t here to hurl insults, folks, please leave Mr. Davison alone. There is no value to getting entrenched here with circular arguments about evolution. This blog is not about evolution, so let us not allow it to be co-opted into one that is.

As a final note, IIRC, the genus Loxodonta is under 2mya by maybe half a mil. But paleobiology is only (so far) a passing interest for me. Even so, it is only one example, not much more recent than Dr. Davison says, so I don’t say it strikes him out.

The various popular cladograms certainly do not make it seem as if evolution has ceased, only that it takes millions, or even 10s of millions of years for major branch points to develop. Furthermore, our knowledge is quite incomplete, We don’t even have a handle on speciation in the Amazon (the best witches’ cauldron we’ve got), so I don’t think we can safely conclude that no new genuses have evolved in the last 2my.

Evolution and the future of this planet are closely linked issues. The only reason that you suggest leaving me alone is because you are afraid of me and my sources. You also don’t like to see your vitriol exposed. That suits me just fine.

“Internet blogs, almost without exception, are centers of polarization and protectionism for the particular biases of their founders.”

and

“Evolution is finished” is one of the threads on my blog and I invite all to participate there and on the “global warming” thread as well, where you can offer your opinions on what I regard as the two most pressing issues of our time, an understanding of our origins and an understanding of what seems to me to be our impending extinction. “

in a single posting is just too much for this unfulfilled snotbag. One would think that given the delicious irony of those statements that one could expect a sharp wit, instead we get a blunt weapon that knows only humorless self-aggrandizement. Pass.

Leave poor Emeritus Professor Davison alone. (At least I think he is emeritus, but he might have been booted out of the U. of Vermont.) His website is actually funny, if you like visiting blogs where the owner talks to himself all day long. He hasn’t published anything of note in decades, and what he has published in the last 20 years has been in some obscure journal. He has no citations and has had no impact whatsoever on anyone (except himself). He doesn’t know crap about global warming or evolution. He is like the tree that fell in the forest, and no one was there to hear it fall. He doesn’t make a sound.

He could be pretty sharp. Probably smarter than I am. Yet I still don’t think he is right on the issue of AGW.

Over two thirds of the people I hang out with have IQs that are, oh, about 40 to 50 points (or more) higher than mine. A natural consequence of having spent my life in the gaming industry in one way or another. (So he could be genius level and still be a cut under most of my friends.)

a.) They do indeed know more than the average dude.
b.) Their creativity is–somewhat–above average.
c.) Their wisdom averages well below par.
d.) They are every bit as likely to be wrong on any given point or issue than the average dude–perhaps more so.

It is not just I who claims that no new Genera have appeared in the last two million years. Julian Huxley, Robert Broom and Pierre Grasse, all have agreed that a new Genus has not appeared in the last two million years. I have simply extended that to claim that no new true, experimentally verified species have appeared in historical times, during which period tens of thousands of species have become extinct.

In short –

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”

Those who disagree are invited to present their evidence on my EVOLUTION IS FINISHED thread.

These charts are not a “refutation” of global warming, but merely environment enmity in the form of statistical deflection. Despite the uniformed and devious Fox furor that ensued, its ideologically tainted tutorial is already dated. Interludes of global cooling are paradoxically known to be a manifestation of global warming. In fact, attention has already been drawn to this 9 years ago. For the most condensed synopsis I know that is accessible to the general educated public Cf. the article below.
Dr. G. Heath King (IQ 178)

Global Warming can Cause Global Cooling
Jeff Poling
Scientists announced in the July 21, 1999, edition of the journal Nature findings that suggest that global warming can sometimes lead to cold weather or even a worldwide freeze.
Scientists have long known that a severe cold spell occurred after the end of the Pleistocene glaciation, approximately 8,200 years ago. The cause, however, has been a mystery. The authors of the Nature article write that the centuries long cold spell might have been caused by meltwater from the disappearing glaciers, cooling the North Atlantic.
The Laurentide Ice Sheet covered parts of North America with ice up to two miles thick for more than a million years. When the Earth began to warm 10,000 years ago, it retreated back toward the poles. The ice sheet left in its wake at least two lakes containing more water than the Great Lakes combined.
In the Hudson Bay, ice held the water in place like a plug in a bathtub. When the plug finally melted, trillions of gallons gushed into the Labrador Sea, flowing out at 100 times the rate water leaves the Mississippi.
The conclusions of the authors are the result of a study by University of Colorado and Canadian researchers who examined evidence of this huge flood in the Hudson Bay region of Quebec and Ontario.
Independent research showed that global temperatures dropped significantly within several hundred years of the flood. Until this study, nobody could pinpoint if these two events were connected, said the study’s lead author, University of Colorado geologist Don Barber. The scientists used radiocarbon dating of clams in the flood sediment, and other evidence, to correlate the two events.
The Atlantic Gulf Stream normally acts like a conveyor belt to deliver warm tropical water to temperate regions. By adding so much cold fresh water in such a short time, the flood shut down the Gulf Stream, said Richard Alley, a climate expert at Penn State University.
Temperatures in Greenland and Europe dropped by 6 to 15 degrees for at least 200 years, according to ice core data.
The authors conclusions demonstrate how global warming can, paradoxically, provoke a global freeze. If a modern glacier such as the Greenland Ice Sheet melts as a result of rising temperatures in the next century, it could trigger a similar flood and climate fluctuation, the researchers said.

I do disagree with some of your basic premises. I have my reasons, and I also admit I may be wrong.

To be clear, I do believe in GW and do believe that man is a contributor. but I also think it is exaggerated (as evidenced by recent trend in site violation). I think PDO correlates best with the observed climate change during the 20th Century. Better than either solar activity or CO2 increase. If there is a downturn now, that correlation will have been reinforced.

I also think there may be some question concerning CO2 measurement itself. For example, I am highly skeptical of the accepted slight downturn in trend during WWII, which, as you know, featured allout full war production, several troposhpere-puncturing firestorms, and aerial bombardment of over 100 cities, many of them incendiary raids. Especially as direct measurements at the time (but not the ice core proxies) correlate somewhat with this and the postwar recession. (Perhaps CO2 is disributed less well than is currently accepted?)

Clearly La Niña has had a major effect on the recent downturn. The question is whether this presages a PDO reversal (which occurred 1949-1951). It’s a 25-30 year half-cycle, and it’s 28 years in. If that’s true, we could be in for a stretch of cooling for the next 2 to 3 decades.

There is some question concerning Greenland melt. There has been some melt around the edges, but increaded precip has caused an accumulation in the middle. (Also, a recently discovered under-ice hot spot has been discovered in NE Greenland.)

Assuming that there is at least a partial offset of center-ice growth to make up for (at least aprtially) edge melt, does this not create some sort of homeostasis?

Also consider that thew UDCs will have developed and turned away from coal in the next few decades. Natural economic forces (without regualtion) will come into play and CO2 use will stabilize. CO2 persists for only a few decades in the atmosphere, and before long the troposphere will be shedding it as fast as it is accumulating it, another homeostasis factor.

All too often scientists do not account for the sociological or historical factors. They understand science, not history (which is where I come in).
They simply assume CO2 use will keep incresing at the same rate without end. This is (highly unlikely. An s-curve will occur even if not a single CO2 law is enatced. Paul Ehrlich made this same error repeatedly, by analogy. Climate scientists also tend to ignore 800-lb gorillas like the impact of WWII.

We stll have a great deal of speciation today, even with man’s footprint. How often did new genera develop in the past? Are there not 2 million (or 1.5 m) year gaps between new genera in the past?

Not to mention we don’t even know all the species that exist now, either on land or in the oceans, so there’s no way anyone can say there hasn’t been any speciation in x amount of time. And of the deep ocean, we know practically nothing.

The formation of every species, every genus, every family, right on up the taxonomic series was an INSTANTANEOUS event. There was never such a thing as a gradual evolution. Such saltational origins are now a thing of the distant past. In short – EVOLUTION IS FINISHED.

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”

Sorry to go back on my word but I can ‘t stand seeing Evan Jones’ statement remain unchalleneged.

But I don’t really see how that challenges my statement. I did not comment on how quickly a genus springs into being, merely that it has happened (somewhat) less than 2mya.

Or do you mean that NO evolution happens gradually? If you are saying that, I must disagree, and so do “my pigeons”, which have changed substantially during my lifetime). Either that or we disagree on the meaning of the term “gradual”.

In the case of the pigeons, the environment changed:

1.) Cleanup of the air, massive sandblasting of buildings, resulting in a radical change of color of buildings (they used to be a ubiquitous gray–but no longer!)

2.) A heavy dose of predation. partly by hawks, but esp. by crows, both recent immingrants to NYC. Neither were a significant presence when i was growing up.

The considerable change in the pigeon population (size, robustness, and esp. coloration) has taken a mere dozen or so generations to manifest itself (on a subspecies level).

I mean that NO evolution HAPPENED gradually. I also mean what I say in my signature. I have published these views and consider them valid. To review those papers I recommend going to ISCID’s “brainstorms” forum where you will find them all in the Archives along with commentary.

You are welome to participate on my weblog where I have a thread – EVOLUTION IS FINISHED – dedicated to exactly that proposition.

The variations in your pigeons are due only to the relaxation of natural selection in urban environments. They are still all Colombo livia. In rural environments their phenotypes remain unchanged. Subspecies are not incipient species. They are more or less specalized evolutionary dead ends, doomed to ultimate extinction.

“We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed…The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.”
Otto Schindewolf

Thanks for now shutting me down completely. In so doing you have joined with Pharyngula, Panda’s Thumb, EvC, ARN, RichardDawkins.net, Uncommon Descent and a number of other weblogs that deal with dissenters exactly the same way. I just called attention to it on my Global Warming thread. Congratulations on having made my increasing list of “blogbullies.”

REPLY: You aren’t “shut down”. But you apparently didn’t remember I said earlier no more talk about evolution here, since it is not the focus of this blog. But you persisted; your last post tried to tie evolution and global warming together. Thus, I choose not to post it.

It would be no different if you tried to regularly engage conversations on quilting or gardening. If you want to engage the topics we are discusssing, sans evolution, you are welcome to. If you want to talk evolution, you have your own blog for that.

Dr. Davison–the Rev has got to sleep sometime. And he obviously has to moderate the queue.

I’m sure we are more than welcome to discuss climate change in the appropriate threads no matter what side of the controversy one is on. I, for one, would be interested in what you have to say. (I suggest you repost the part with the GW stuff.)

I beg to differ. Evolution and global warming are intimately related. You are more interested in CONTROL than in the truth. You are no different than every other blogczar, insecure, protectionist and power crazed. That is why you deleted my comment. It did not conform with your bias. I recommend you replace it but that is entirely up to you. It is likely that you can’t can’t as you probably destroyed it in a fit of pique. That was a mistake and if so is one you will regret. I love to expose my adversaries with their own actions.

REPLY: “…in a fit of pique” You mean like your opening statement here where you called us all “snotbags”?

You can believe whatever you like, but if you want to discuss evolution, do it on your own blog please. You clearly live for the fight, I’m just not interested in discussing evolution here. You have your own blog, discuss it there. You seem to imply that I and others have to conform to your terms, I assure you sir that we do not.

I see you deleted my next one too. You are trash, no better than P.Z. Myers .

REPLY: And I will continue to delete any posts on evolution you make, if you don’t like that, tough noogies. This blog is not about evolution nor will I allow it to be co-opted into one because it interests you.

I beg to differ. Evolution and global warming are intimately related. You are more interested in CONTROL than in the truth. You are no different than every other blogczar, insecure, protectionist and power crazed. That is why you deleted my comment. It did not conform with your bias. I recommend you replace it but that is entirely up to you. It is likely that you can’t can’t as you probably destroyed it in a fit of pique. That was a mistake and if so is one you will regret. I love to expose my adversaries with their own actions.

You are one paranoid person. PLEASE take your medication! For our sake!

Thank you for your intervention. That is unique in my experience. My convictions on the causes of global warming are well known and agree with those of Tim Flannery for whom i have great respect as a researcher, a naturalist and a climatologist. The primary and dominant cause of the rapid changes that the earth is now undergoing is the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Variations in the activity of the sun and the Milankovich cycles which are very real, pale in comparison to the rapid changes now taking place which correlate perfectly with the records of the Mauno Loa station in Hawaii. It is my conviction, which I share with Flannery, that for all practical purposes, CO2 is the sole cause of the dramatic alterations that now threaten our very existence not only as a civilization, but perhaps even as a species.

It was in another doomsday book, Patrick Buchanan’s “Day of Reckoning,” that I found an appropriate comment on page 160.

“As Pogo said, ‘We have met the enemy and he is us.'”

“Day of Reckoning” would have been a much better title for Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers.”

I am convinced with Buchanan that we are also doomed politically and economically. Our greed will surely destroy us as we try to inflict our views on every other nation on earth. We are just as assuredly doomed by our physical presence, a monoculture approaching seven billions. It is absurd to imagine that such a biomass of large mammals coud possible survive in the technological world that made those numbers possible. We have created a nightmare for ourselves from which there will be no awakening. The only conceivable solution would be to reduce our numbers by two orders of magnitude to what they were a mere two centuries ago. Only China is facing this reality which is to their credit. Such a reduction would require a world government which could enforce one child per couple. Even if that could be achieved, I believe it is already too late.

There is no need to further elaborate my position here except to assert, as I did in the message that never appeared, that evolution and global warming are intimately related subjects. It was the evolution that produced Homo sapiens that ultimately produced the Industrial Revolution which began only two centuries ago and with it came the Age of Technology which I believe is the terminal age of human history. It is my conviction that we are comitting suicide with CO2, the molecule that made the Age of Technology possible. I further believe that there is absolutely nothing that we can now do to prevent it from occurring before the end of the present century and probably much sooner.

It is not pleasant for me to have to offer this pessimistic scenario, but I nevertheless feel it is my responsibilty as both a scientist and a citizen to do so.

Flannery is indeed a Mammalogist and Paleontologist and Climatologist too. In my opinion he is far more qualified to comment on climatology than you are. I don’t even know who you are. What have you published? What are your credentials?

You have also become one of my favorites sources of denigration. Check out #71 on my WHY BANISHMENT? thread.

REPLY: Actually you are wrong about the climatologist part. From Wikipedia, Flannery’s description reads:
“Professor Timothy Fridtjof Flannery (born 28 January 1956) is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist and global warming activist.”

“global warming activist” does not equal “climatologist”, saying it does is like saying noise=music

Wikipedia? That ultra-liberal, uncontrolled, unrefereed joke is to cyberdumb what The New York Times is to the print media. I have always named my sources and quoted them in their own words. My sources are some of the finest minds of the past and the present. Tim Flannery is one of them. Of course he is an alarmist. So am I. What do you intend to do about it, ban me? That wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Blogbullies do that sort of thing. That is how they maintain control. Do what you have to do. I do. That is the way it is supposed to be, the way it was “prescribed” to be. I couldn’t care less.

“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein

I wonder who your intellectual heros are or even if you have any.

“No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men.”
Thomas Carlyle

This thread is now closed for additional comments since it is just becoming nothing but spin around Davison’s comments, instead of what the post was originally about, which were Dr. Joanne Simpson’s views on the climate science issues.